All of them.
The only unknown here is the order
His arguments will definitely be(and definitely are) poor and disingenuous in someone's eyes no matter what they are.
That's the beauty of it.
I understand your point that applying changes is consensus based and it's the best way ever invented. And it implies that Saylor can have his own opinion, just like you and I do. Clearly he can have somewhat bigger reputation effect on the consensus mechanism than we do, and he earned it. Yet I don't think he's in power to stop enthusiasts, but he has same rights as we do to spread his vision.
We can debate on how many active contributors does BTC need for the time WHEN absolutely necessary changes to the protocol will have to be made. But a situation when BTC needs a new quantum resistant hashing algo and there's noone in the world able to do it - is impossible to imagine, imho.
I don't see current situation as anything problematic. There are enthusiasts who work, and they sometimes become too enthusiastic lol, but there are those who make their work more difficult and it's just fine. I like this balance of powers and it works great, imo.
Listened to a good deal of nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m’s latest podcast with Peter McCormack. He wants to ossify the protocol for the most part because he thinks it’s already successful, and that the risk from tinkering outweighs the upside.
That’s fair, but there’s one point (maybe I missed it) that he seems to elide over, and that’s that the devs can’t do anything on their own if the nodes don’t go along with it, correct?
So he seems to position the devs as centralized tinkerers, messing with the free market, but the devs are more like people making new inventions, products, services, possibilities, and the market is the nodes who can adopt or reject them.
So Saylor, it seems, is arguing for cutting off the inventors because of the problems they might create, but that battle should be fought at the node level IMO, persuade people these inventions are harmful or pointless, and see what happens. Or fund other inventions that are better.
But cutting off the innovation at the root because of the possibility that people might adopt bad ones seems out of step with the spirit of the protocol.
I love Saylor, guy has huge balls, but he seemed to be bullshitting, reaching a bit with some of the analogies he was making.
Again, it’s possible I’m misunderstanding either what he was saying or how the protocol works, but that was my impression.
Considering a rich history of failed attempts, would you encourage improvers to tinker with something that finaly succeeded and survived?
Would you want a group of enthusiasts to tinker with your own DNA trying to add new features?
It never went away.
It spored many other trackers.
Noone stops p2p file sharing. Just as noone stops p2p value transfer.
Watch them increase the term to 6 years
Wrong
The 0.1% runs our societies
And they're completely different to those you described.
New from X: “Starting today, all new creators must verify their ID to receive payouts. All existing creators must do so by July 1, 2024.”
https://help.x.com/en/using-x/creator-ads-revenue-sharing
If this how X is trying to solve their spambots problem?
Or are they just striving to KYC their users,
The more the better?
Don't remember where I read some estimates of randomly guessing seeds.
Even if your guessing maschine is 100% effective(you assume that while calculating all the energy goes to changing a transistors' state with 0 heat production) there's simply not enough energy in the Milky Way galaxy to go through.
Don't remember exact numbers, just the idea.
Using a passphrase + your private key just means you use some other private key which is derived from the pair.
I see it as a 2-of-2 miltisig kind.
There's no point in stacking something you'll never run out of.
So yeah, stacking sats seems the only option.
2.19BTC/week to charter this boat!
https://www.yachtcharterfleet.com/luxury-charter-yacht-24020/m3.htm https://v.nostr.build/jY3qE.mp4
I realized that my first thought was not "damn, I'd love to rent it!"
But " damn, How cool would that be to rent it out for 2BTC/week!"
Am I hopeless?
Runes Protocol Activity Shows Dramatic Decline 20 Days After Launch
Runes generated a staggering $135 million in transaction fees within its first week. However, recent data indicates a significant slowdown in user engagement and transaction volumes.
https://bitcoinnews.com/adoption/bitcoin-runes-protocol-decline/
Wow, what a surprise!
What COVID turned into became apparent only some time later.
It's cool now to say it was too much for COVID and it was, but the same protocol saved millions in case of ebola.
What if COVID turned out really deadly and wiped out a half of the population? It happened in our history not once and it will happen again in the future.
Then the measures taken in that short span of an unknown magnitude would've probably saved 10 - 20% and wouldn't be called an overreaction.
Prompt reaction on Ebola was a good call, wasn't it?
So true.
I just let it boil for a while to see what comes up and stays.